Coming up this evening at 9, "Piers Morgan Tonight" invites Rob Lowe to share his trademark brand of witty charm and candid insight in a primetime interview that comes amidst an intensified national debate regarding guns and firearm legislation.

Joining host Piers Morgan for a face to face sit down, the actor who's well-known for his work in such films as "St. Elmo's Fire" and "Tommy Boy" shares his personal stance on the most-polarizing issue in the country today:

"It's in our Constitution. Look, I owns guns. I'm gone a lot. I have a wife, I have two kids. I know how to keep them, they’re in a gun safe," says the 48-year-old who was born in Virginia and raised in Ohio. "I'm a sportsman, you know, and I shoot skeet and I grew up in the Midwest, so that’s a part of my culture. So, I understand them in a way that perhaps people living in more urban areas don’t have that history."

Admitting that he would support an assault ban should such an initiative be pushed by President Obama, Lowe suggests the issue is broader than simply legislation:

"I think one of the problems for me, and I know I've heard you talk about this, and I'm glad, is that I think the mental health, parenting, personal responsibility," says the man who portrayed Sam Seaborn on NBC's political drama "The West Wing." "The first shooter video game stuff which - look, admittedly, I missed that generationally, so it's not a thing for me. I've never played them, I don’t really get it. My kids do. And I just think kids growing up, blowing people away, blood, pulp, everywhere, and then turning it off and going to have a sandwich ... I don't think that that is good."

soundoff(143 Responses)

As an American who moved years ago to Europe to offer my children better schooling, I was astonished to find a much better life for myself. I am no longer desperate that if I loose my job I loose my health benefits and can no longer offer my kids a home. It's sad that very few Americans afford to really see how people live in the other developed countries, and therefore they are so easily manipulated to believe that America is today what it once was.

Long work hours, small vacations, bad school system, expensive for-profit health plans, led to creating a whole country anesthetized by a mercenary news media and Hollywood industry, a country living their lives on a couch and wanting only to escape the reality of their lives.

Sadly, a large ignorant segment of population is led to believe that owning guns is synonym to be free.

I would love one day to come home, but many things would have to happen..

Which country in Europe? My friends from there are losing jobs and have extremely high unemployment as high as 50%. The EU is facing some tough times due to the financial crisis caused by their socialist policies and France is looking at raising the tax rate to 75%.

Sounds like a "loose" argument. Obviously your superior education isn't working out too well, and apparently Europe has forced you to look at America through an unrealistic and overgeneralized lens. Look at the top universities in the world and tell me how many times you see schools from the US. Did you really just say a WHOLE country anesthetized by the media? Give us a little credit. We aren't quite as "anesthetized" as you think. Thats a pretty ironic argument considering you're looking at America through the media's lens from Europe. (By the way, the "I lived there" argument is invalidated by the fact that you commented on a CNN video). Furthermore, I will avoid spending TOO much time dealing with the fact that "owning guns is synonym to be free" doesn't make sense in ANY context and let you know where we are coming from. I'm sure during your sub-par experience in America somebody told you about the bill of RIGHTS. It lists our freedoms. So when the government that is supposed to protect these freedoms begins to get rid of them, I think it is pretty clear what is happening. The second amendment was specifically written to protect the citizens from the tyrannies of government. No really, go read it word for word. So, if the second amendment, being part of the Bill of Rights, is tampered with, and the Bill of Rights is a list of our freedoms, then basic transitive property suggests that our freedoms are being tampered with and ignored.

Seriously? Now tell us all about how high your taxes are to accommodate all those government sponsored programs. Tell us about what rights you actually do or don't have under whatever rule you are living under? I am not ready to have the freedoms that we at least still have in the US of A trampled just yet. None of those items that you enjoy in your European abode are free. Are you running your own business? Working for someone else? Or living at the expense of other taxpayers? Or is it a combination of any of these? Just interested in knowing what the real economic and social trade-offs are that you seem to be happy with? And, really, bottom line from me, if you are happy with those trade-offs and where you are, I am happy with you and for you for making an informed decision on where and why you want to live there to raise your children. I am happy here raising my four in California, but will definitely move to another state to retire because taxes and fees and other expenses are too high in California. And, I want be relying on any social security or other government hand outs to feed myself, go the doctor, or pay my bills. I like my independence or at least the freedom to choose such independence.

If a country would be the author of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that killed 26 people, 20 of them children...100% of Americans would approuve a war and retaliation towards that country! Here, the enemy is the 2nd amendment...and anyone who supports it!

2nd amendment or not, gun ban or not...criminals will STILL FIND A WAY TO GET GUNS. If you ban guns, all you're doing is giving the criminals a monopoly because we'd have no way to properly defend ourselves. Heroin and crack are illegal to own, but guess what? Criminals and drug users still get them, don't they? That's what you liberal dolts can't seem to comprehend. Criminals are always going to have guns whether they're banned or not. That's why they're criminals; they don't follow the law.
Since Australia's gun ban, crime has RISEN dramatically because the criminals know the citizens have no way to protect themselves. It's true; look it up.

So, I did as yousaid and looked up the rise in crime in Australia. Please give an actual credible source for your information. I googled this, and all I get is Wikipedia, snopes.com, ncpa.org, etc. I would like to see a source that is not someones opinion, can be hacked easily, and is not controled by political parties. NCPA does not count because it was founded by wealthy families, which makes it liable to be controlled or inaccurate information for personal gain. Not to mention they pride themselves in aggressivley marketing political leaders and special interest groups. This is a link to Australia's government website. It shows a decrease on gun use, and a rise in the use of knives. From what I read, they banned guns in 1996. Not sure if this is correct, but if you look at Australia's own statistics, gun homicides decreased after 1996, rising significantly once in 1999-2000. Then declinign again. Hmmm....what do you have to say to that? This is on Australias government website. Not sure where these other people are getting their info from...but it is a lie! http://aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

Nikki, please realize that you will always find a way to believe what you want. If you don't like what something says you will find a way to let yourself not believe it. I bet you think Goerge Soros funds snopes.com. Its a believe what you want world but please realize that does not make you smarter.

With such a comparison I really wonder what your IQ rating his. Glad you have an opinion but when it comes to this issue you really don't know what you talking about. Do us a huge favor, kindly crawl back under the rock you crawled from.

The real enemy is not the guns but our culture decline fueled by years of glorifying murder in the name of entertainment. We also gave up our moral conscience to our enlightenment in our education systems which has rob us of human dignity and replaced animistic values. Plus it is time that we defend our schools. Years ago the warning went out but the politics overrule common sense and now our children are paying the price for our insanity.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
– Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

We all have a God-given right to protect ourselves. We have porous borders that allows anyone who would like to harm us into the country. We have a government that is about to decimate the military. WE THE PEOPLE need to be the militia at the ready to protect us from threats, both foreign and domestic. Don't drink the Kool-Aid! Study history, see what happened to other countries when guns are taken away, or not available. HERE IS FOOD FOR THOUGHT – WHAT IF AFRICANS SOLD AS SLAVES HAD GUNS 300 YEARS AGO? PERHAPS THEY WOULD HAVE REMAINED FREE!

It seems you failed to brush up on your basic history, as there were numerous slave revolts from the 1600s well into the 1800s. It's also incredibly offensive to say that if black people had guns, they would have resisted slavery. They were living their lives peacefully in Africa until white colonialists and imperialists came in, rounded them up like cattle, shipped them off to a foreign country under the most horrific conditions imaginable, and then sold them into bondage. A gun is not a panacea. A gun is a weapon of war. Please stop your racist ramblings.

Unfortunately your "facts" are wrong. You shouldn't get so offended over a subject that you clearly know nothing about except what you were taught in third grade. The Africans were living life peacefully until colonist came and rounded them up? Colonists never had to venture far into Africa. They set up posts on the shoreline in which the "peaceful" Africans came and sold their brothers and sisters into slavery. Only 10-20% of those slaves actually made it to the US the vast majority were used on plantations in the Caribbean. You should probably brush up on the second amendment too so you won't be "offended" by the thought that guns are meant as a deterrent to tyranny. Remember racism is bread by ignorance.

you should do your homework and read your history. The REAL truth was that the white slave traders started coming to Africa and getting their own slaves because they wished to overstep the Black Slave owners in Africa who sold their own people into bondage for a higher price.

Demand for slaves brought the white folk to Africa. But the slave trade was pumping happyily7 along way before they stepped one foot on African Soil.

Stop playing race everywhere people. Human beings are stupid and mean enough without adding misinformation and racial agendas into the mix.

The European slave trade was a tragic, criminal time in history but to say that Africans were living in peace is a falacy. Tribal wars were norm and the tribes themselves enslaved each other for centuries as did many Indian tribes in the Americas.

In Australia their was a buy back scheme for guns in the 90s after the Port Arthur mas shooting "get this" people voluntarily gave up their guns because they did not want to live in a society full of guns! The out come has been that their has not been another mass shooting since, and shooting deaths have radically reduced to about 30-40 murders per year!

Seriously? You just said that, dsfljdf? That is the response of someone who is just responding to respond. While technically Australia and the US are not the "same," as in they do not have the same type of government, same shape, same type of natices, same name, etc. I could go on. But what they do have in common is that they are inhabited by human beings, which are scientifically known to be the same species and therefore can have the same thought processes and actions. Even though we have different types of governments does not mean that we can not have similar and in some cases the same laws. So yes, it could work here in the US like it has in Australia. All it would take is for people like you to take their heads out fo their butts and do the same thing Australia did. There is nothing that restricts the US from following in Austrailia's footsteps. People need to stop claiming the 2nd Amendment as a right because some one wrote it on a piece of paper a long time ago and said that it was a law. Laws can be changed. People need to get with the times.

Did you forget the part where I said that there are 270 million guns in the US? Couldn't figure out that I was trying to say that a gun buy-back wouldn't work because there are so many already? Maybe stop assuming what my stance is and just try to stick with what I'm actually saying and the facts. Yes we're all human, but we have way more guns per person than Australia ever has... which one would think would be a big factor for a buy-back program, but apparently not.

By decimate the military, you mean not spend more on our defense than the 6 countries with the largest milatary budgets COMBINED? And, do you really think that you're untrained militia is any match for the U.S Marines, Army, Navy, and National Guard? This is why you guys lost the presendency and are about to lose the House – you live in your own echo chambers and don't use your own brains.

Gun control in the US should mean keeping firearm out of the hands of those who cannot be trusted to use them appropriately or responsibly. The glaring problems with gun control are private sales (background checks not required) and straw buyers (someone without a record buying a weapon for someone with a record). If people someone is deemed untrustworthy to own a weapon, why should they be trusted with similarly dangerous equipment?

Everyone should have a background check to receive a driving license. Those legal to purchase a weapon would have a normal license, those not legal to purchase a weapon would have a red background. This would eliminate the lack of background checks in private sales, a copy of the purchasers driving license would be required for all gun sales and held with the seller for a minimum of five years. If a gun is used in the commission of a crime, and someone is found to have made a sale without a copy of a license, the seller could be held legally liable for the crime. If fingerprinting legal gun owners is deemed appropriate, fingerprinting everyone with a government ID should be just as appropriate.

For those that are not legal to own a gun, they should also be prevented from purchasing hazardous chemicals, operating dangerous equipment, or working with vulnerable individuals.

Everyone would be listed as legal or not legal to own a weapon. I believe this would also be helpful to police, if someone is stopped and has a red ID they would know to be extra vigilant with that person.

I really understand where Mr. Lowe is coming from. If you don’t own one of these semi-automatic rifles everyone is calling an assault weapon, you don’t really care if they ban them. It is hard for most of us avid gun owners and users to understand the need for these weapons for self-defense because of the danger of over penetration, ripping through a wall across the street and hitting an innocent person. That is why home defense is normally shotgun or pistol and even with the pistol ammunition, most responsible people take into account over penetration and the dangers of it. I think this same issue of high capacity magazines on rifles falls into the same problem of just not understanding the need. I can see a need for more rounds with a pistol, but the high powered rifle is harder to justify. All of this being said, it is hard to show how making all these changes in the law will stop any of this. The tool used isn’t the cause and the cause isn’t going to be limited by the restriction of one tool.

But Jackie the 223 is probably the safest home defense round to use precisely because it doesn't over penetrate. High velocity light 55 grain bullets don't over penetrate like much heavier pistol bullets or buck shot.

I will give you that one. 00 Buck does over penetrate but is a low velocity lite round. The 55gr hollow point would explode on impact and wouldn’t go through much of a wall without self-destructing. I guess when I was writing that I was thinking of the FMJ NATO round for the AR-15. I stand corrected.

dfdf, Don't run out just yet and buy an ar-15. There is a lot to be said for the 12ga shotgun for home defense. You can get rounds that don’t over penetrate and there is a reason that a Remington 870 is used by the secret service or was for years. It is a weapon that we never let you down and the stopping power is second to none at close range.

You got that right. I can't even find any ammunition for a 223 or anything else. Wait, there is still lots of 30.06 ammo out there. Now there is a battle rifle that won two world wars. Problem solved. There are no bullets left for the assault rifles. LOL

All the background checks in the world would not have prevented the Newtown shooting. He took his mother's guns. What we need more than background checks are ways to help the mentally ill. If they are helped, then perhaps they won't go off and shoot people. Also, the entertainment industry needs to get off their obsession with violence. FOOD FOR THOUGHT: To MUSE is to think (keep this in mind till then end). To be apolitical is to not be political. To be apathetic is to not care. To be AMUSED (entertained) IS TO NOT THINK!

You are right. Bush should have gone through a background check. This would have saved the lives of over two million innocent people killed and our service men and woman would not have return in body bags.

What we need is to hold gun owners accountable when their guns end up in bad people's hands. If you want to own guns, take it with the responsibility required – if your gun ends up in a crime then you should be held accountable as well.

Finally, Bronx Patriot – someone who makes sense. We should look at the last several years/decade of mass shootings in the U.S. and apply the proposed gun control measures from the Obama team. How many of the ideas would have prevented those shootings? Then we should take a look at the person or persons who committed those crimes. Would a mental illness red flag when they were younger have helped prevent them from growing up and shooting other people? I know it's easy to say guns are the problem. But perhaps we're missing the obvious – that we have a violent side as humans, that criminals will be criminals no matter what laws we pass, and that people who have mental illness need help before they become a danger to themselves or others. Polarizing every issue in this country prevents us from truly coming together for solutions. It reminds me of hamsters in a wheel. We just keep going 'round and 'round but never get anywhere.

Lowe, as a gun owner himself, wasn't being drawn on the subject, and said Americans would react very badly to any kind of gun confiscation. Morgan keeps repeating that in Britain that the handgun ban wasn't a political issue between the right and left. I think Morgan has a selective memory on this issue. The Conservatives who were in power at the time weren't initially pushing for a ban. The ban only became politically motivated when Tony Blair's Labor Party realized the political capital they could gain by making it an election issue. Enter center stage Piers Morgan and his Labor supporting tabloid newspaper, The Daily Mirror, and other tabloid rags that whipped up public support for a ban. It was an election stunt and nothing more by Labor, aided by people like Morgan. Make no mistake Morgan is after handguns as well.

This wasn't an election issue; it was a common sense issue. There was an inquiry after that shooting called the ""Cullen Inquiry" & it was that – that recommended "Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which made it illegal to privately own hand guns in GT. Britain. The Conservatives introduced a ban on all cartridge ammunition handguns as the government of the day, & then Tony Blair on winning the next election, banned all other guns from private ownership, (they being 22 cartridge handguns).

The only thing the Cullen Inquiry did was cover up the fact that the West Central Scotland police were negligent and ignored the advice of one of their own officers who reported on a number of occasions to his command that Hamilton was unstable. The Inquiry was a sham.

Hamilton was a "Scout Leader" so in 1996 he was trusted more than most & the police slipped up in investigating rumours that he was taking obscene photographs of children...but the County Commissioner in 1974 took away his Scout warrant to be with any scouts what-so-ever. That set him on the road to do as he did, along with his shop failing & letters written to MP's about his plight, not being allowed to work with boys or setting up a boys club had being ignored. He was, I agree, a walking "Time-bomb"!.

Dunblane was a tragic policing failure and an atrocious example of political opportunism, that Labor exploited during the run up to a general election. Furthermore, the ban only applied to England, Wales and Scotland, Northern Ireland, the one area of the UK that you would think a ban would make most common sense, given the killing atrocities that go on there, was exempted, and it still is today. The Isle of Man and the two Channel Islands, Guernsey and Jersey also remain exempt.

I agree. It breaks my heart what happened at Newtown, but the gun control that Peirs is dead set on will increase crime. It will not make anyone safer and will not stop sick people from doing sick things. We all want to see things done that will limit these acts, but it is obvious that we disagree on what will work.

I know profiling is a dirty word these days, but all of these suspect are outcast loner young men. We need to train teachers to notice these types and flag them. Then we need to get them help before it escalates to this level. We are not seeing any your women doing any of these crimes. What is that?

The more you keep thinking about what will work or not; the sooner the next tragedy will happen, even this week or next...you could have the next shooting. Making excuses to do nothing...is nothing more but another excuse to do "Nothing"!

Well, I sure don't believe we should do nothing about crime. This specific type of crime isn't going to stop by just doing something to make us all feel better. I believe in the universal background check. I don’t understand the justification of any high powered rifle with a high capacity magazine. I don’t think making more laws in this area, although good, will stop disturbed kids. We need to pay attention and teachers need better training to notice them.

Sandy Hook happened, & it involved innocent children of 5 & 6. Time you people, started addressing the issue...instead of ducking around it...& Piers is right to keep it going till he bores you into giving up the kind of weapons as he calls them, "Killing Machines", the semi-automatics!

Get rid of them...& I hope President Obama has the guts to just say "We're banning all these kind of weapons"!

That blanket approach will not save our kids. It will only change the tool the psychopath users. At the same time, you have no idea what effect the ban will have in the other areas where guns are saving lives. The problem is the troubled individual. We have to find a way to identify these people and get them help or get them out of society.

Sorry, I'll say it again....it's guns that kill people/children...if this gunman hadn't had such an easy time acquiring his mother's guns/weapons...he wouldn't have succeeded that Friday in what he did, "Mad or Not"?

Banning these types of weapons won't prevent another Sandy Hook, the same as banning handguns didn't prevent another mass shooting in England. As Lowe said Americans react badly to the idea of gun bans. We learnt in the last few days that Wyoming, Texas and North Dakota announced that they are tabling bills to nullify any new federal laws. While this might just be posturing it shows how passionately guarded we are as a nation about our gun rights and that any new measures will be shown the door.

Jaker, then why aren’t you demanding stricter traffic laws as loudly as stricter gun laws? Over 30,000 people are killed in car accidents every year, and many of them are children too. Is that an acceptable collateral damage for our convenience and the economy?

It's entirely plausible that Sandy Hook could have involved the guy strapping explosives to his chest or driving a truck full of explosives into the school or something else. I'm afraid it's not really guns that kill people. Unless someone loads it and pulls the trigger, it's just a hammer – which can be used to kill someone, too. Today I read three different stories of parents killing their children with a) chili powder, b) heroin rubbed on gums and c) some kind of cleaning solution. I'd be interested to know what kind of movies and video games these young loner dudes have watched / played. There must be some psychological connection to spraying bullets into a crowd of innocent people – esp. children – and whatever perverse gratification they receive from doing so. Until we deal with mental illness in a comprehensive manner, we will continue to see these kinds of tragedies. And anyone who says there is no connection between media/movies/video games and these killings can save their breath. I think the depiction of graphic, sometimes horrific violence and perverse images has to have some reaction in the brains of people with mental illness. I have to cover my eyes in some movies, or just turn it off. I can't even watch. It bothers me to see or hear bullets being gratuitously sprayed and blood everywhere. Mind you, I am a gun owner and would absolutely use one to fend off an intruder to my home who I perceive is there to do me or my kids harm. But do we really need to glorify guns, or violence in general?

I don't like giving teachers guns because teachers don't want to shoot anyone. Even in the Newtown situation, shooting someone isn't an easy task. Teachers will delay and the shooter will shoot them anyway. Even if a teacher shoots a pistol, the odds of one shot stopping the suspect is very low and the teacher again is shot. If they want to arm teachers, give them one of those stun guns that shoot out darts. That will stop a suspect faster than a bullet and teacher will not hesitate to use it.

I agree, I don't think arming every teacher though is what is being proposed. But with sufficient training certain individuals would be capable of the task. I think shooting an individual who is confronting you with a gun and threatening the lives of others would be an easy task. Every mother and father comes equipped with this basic instinct. At Newtown the first responders took 22 minutes to arrive on the scene. An armed teacher or guard at worst would have stalled the progress of the shooter, or at best stopped him right at the start.

I know and isn't my first choice, but putting a gun in the teachers hand wasn't either. This whole issue isn't really a gun issue and the solution isn't going to be guns either. I figured if the teacher was trained to get beside the door, that there was a better chance to hit him with the taser. I think most of these people are being shot at point blank range.

Mr. Morgan needs to return to England if he believes that the 2nd Amendment Right is not something that should be cheriched.

Legal purchase of arms is the right of any American, why is some psuedo wanna be American (or maybe he is an American) dictating how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted? If Mr. Morgan believes that the sale of arms should be banned, then let him return to England where he would be safe.

We really admire your fearless reporting of and stance against the availability of assault weapons to the public. The next time you interview an NRA representative ask him if the NRA is willing to fund having armed guards at EVERY school in the U.S. With the tremendous profit they make from the sale of guns, they should be able to afford it so that it will not be a burden to taxpayers.

I think Rob did good not to get sucked into Piers' emotional Sandy Hook plea to ban guns. I'm a teacher. If I could carry at school I would and believe me I'd take someone out in a heartbeat if need be. First the assault rifles will go, but it won't stop there. The 2nd amendment is there to protect us from a tyranical government. People forget that.

We desperately need more teachers like you!! Teaching our children the importance of our Second Amendment is imperative. Tyranny happened all over the world throughout history. But still, there are some unbelievably naive people who think it won’t ever happen here.

I wrote in the "New York Times" & the BBB that "Casey Anthony" was/is innocent & would be acquitted & so it came to pass. I still think that way...but I think she ended up the one suffering the most by the loss of her daughter, all mothers mourn forever the passing of a child & I think Casey Anthony will never get over Caylee's death.

PS. I believe the death was family related, even an accident, but I believe Casey Anthony had no hand in the death of her child.

Piers is bringing sane reasoning while we see idiots coming out of the woodwork. What's the point of arming teachers, not going to stop assault weapons. When a student brings in a gun is the teacher going to be trained like the police to make that judgement ? So now what do we do at the parks,movies,malls,pizza parlors, sporting events, day cares??? Really, do you think everyone should be armed? And let's talk about responsible gun owners, what are the statistics on weapons used to injure or kill that have been found by family members in family homes? It's not just mental health , it's raging family members, jealous boyfriends or girlfriends, doped up individuals, and possessive people.And what scares me even more is the raging individuals who can't see these guns need to be banned . Looks like there's a need for more mental health for individuals who are facing anxiety with the thought of not having their guns.

Please take the time to highlight what will happen to outlawed assault weapons. This seriously concerns me. Will they be sent to the Middle East, Mexico, sold on the streets, etc? While change is certainly necessary, we cannot be irresponsible with the potential consequences of loss of these companies' profits. Thank you

The NRA seem like a sick cult, with their leaders making billions of dollars from creating fear! You only need to protect yourselves because the all powerful NRA wont allow for any kind of gun screening and any unbalanced person can get a gun. if its not about money why would they oppose this?. Now they want to make even more money by putting even more guns into schools. How sick. Profits before people should be their motto.

Piers Morgan showed his true intent tonight. He prefers a complete ban on assault rifles as well as on pistols. The fear that gun owners is that the government will have forced registration of all firearms and then like PM wants, the government will seize the weapons through a forced buy back program. The only difference in a pistol and a rifle is a hacksaw. The only difference in an assault rifle and a pisol is a hacksaw. What others don't want to address is the fact that ther is no difference in assualt rifles and pistols. The advocates in favor of gun restrictions begin with long guns and move to pistols.

I am in favor of a background check on all firearms sold by dealers and would also be in favor if, as a private citizen, I could call and have a background check without using another gun store or servicel. I should be able to access this service without using a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder.

Further, people like to state that there is a gunshow loop hole where the transaction for most firearms are sold without background checks. That is not true. 40% of all firearms are sold at gunshows and most vendors at gun shows and almost all sales at gunshows are performed by licensed dealers who are required to complete a background check.

Let's talk in fact and not with media bias. It makes for good talking points for the media but most all purchases of firearms are conducted with background checks. The items that I have discussed are not opinion, they are fact. Do the research for yourself. Don't trust the media to give you facts.

There is no question that Morgan would like to see a handgun ban also. When Morgan was editor of the British tabloid the Daily Mirror, it was his paper that led a national campaign to confiscate and ban the private ownership of handguns in that country. He is deceiving the American viewer when he says otherwise.

They can take the assault weapons and give them to the military or melt them down and use for materials to create art that remembers those who have been lost and those who will be saved when Americans put life of all
over the right to bear arms.

Having grown up in the mid west I too enjoy shooting for sport and the value n being able to own guns. I have been flowing the gun debate and one thing I am would like to see brought up is something called a bump stock or a slide fire stock which is a device which attaches on to common riffles and uses the guns recoil to rock back and fourth enabling any semi automatic to fire like a fully automatic with a single trigger pull. as previously stated I enjoy shooting trap and sporting clays and this type of accessory makes me nervous. I am not looking to start a debate just simply spread awareness of this accessory which in my eyes is more dangerous than hi capacity magazines and flash suppressors.

God bless the kids, the families and friends of all impacted by this tragedy. I'm in Boston and don't know anyone from Newtown but I have to say that I have not yet been able to "move on" from this tragedy. Every morning it breaks my heart when I hear my kids, 6 and 9, saying their goodbyes and "I love you", knowing that so many parents can no longer hear their own kids, hug them and kiss them.

To my fellow Americans: let's exercise common sense. Unfortunately, there isn't a "silver bullet" for this problem but everything we do to minimize the availability of high capacity magazines, semi-automatic weapons, and to enforce background checks, will add up to a safer future for us all. I'm not against guns, you may keep your pistols, rifles, etc. I'm a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, all I'm asking is for common sense.

All I'm asking is for us to do whatever we can to minimize the magnitude of future tragedies. The items listed above along with an overhaul in our mental health legislation will move us a long way towards a safer future.

Piers, please, do not let this go. You have the power to reach to thousands, millions of people around our country. I know it's not an easy task given some of the arguments you hear, but do you best to keep your composure. You have millions of Americans on your side and we all truly appreciate what you have been doing.

WE DO NOT NEED SOME BRIT EXPRESSING HIS OPINION NITELY , WITH THE IDEA WE ARE GOING TO TURN HIS OPION INTO LAW. I WOULD GIVE UP MY GUNS IF ANOTHER TRAGEDY COULD BE STOPPED, BUT IT WONT , THERE IS NO WAY TO STOP SOMEONE THAT WANTS TODO THIS BY ANY GUN LEGISLATION, LOOK AT BRITIAN THEY HAVE TOTAL BAN OF GUNS , AND STILL HAVE GUN MURDERS , THINK ABOUT THAT , NO ONE HAS ANY GUNS, BUT THERE ARE STILL GUN MURDERS, YES MAY BE LOW, BUT WITH NO GUNS IT SHOULD BE ZERO, AND OTHER TYPES OF CRIME HAVE RISEN DUE TO THE ABSCENCE OF GUNS, THERE ARE NO WORDS FOR SANDY HOOK WHAT WE NEED IS SECURITY TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN, THERE IS LOTS OF KINDS OF SECURITY NOT JUST ARMED GAURDS WHAT ABOUT DOGS , OR SOMETHING ELSE , THAT IS WHERE THE CONVERSATION SHOULD BE , WE SHOULD REALIZE SCHOOLS HAVE NO SECURITY AND THEY NEED SOME TAKING MY GUNS IS NOT THE ANSWER WAKE UP LEMMINGS AND THINK WITH A BRAIN NOT EMOTIONS

Assault rifles that are commercially available have been around since the mid 70's. When I was a teenager in the mid 70's I had a Mini 14 with a 30 shot clip. Other kids I knew also had them. We spent a lot of time out hunting, shooting and in other outdoor activities. We spend very little time watching TV (most of which was non violent) and no time in role playing video games that promote the killing of people. There was no such thing as school shootings like we've seen recently. It's interesting that the first person shooter games that young kids now play came out in the early 1990's just a few years ahead of the Columbine shootings. My question is this: If assault weapons have been around for over 20 years before this type of violence began, what changed. Clearly it's not the assault weapons, but something else in our culture that's lead to an increasing pattern of gun violence. Doesn't it make sense that it's not the guns, but the culture that's glamorized and contributed to this type of violent act? Is it Hollywood? Video game manufacturers? Look at how much time the average teenager spends in front of the TV or video game and ask yourself, where are they getting their training? I'd like to see a serious discussion by Mr. Morgan in regard to this.

The left are continuing to fabricate the facts. Tonight on Erin Burnett's show on CNN, a former administration advisor to President Obama, Ross Brooks, stated that those states and cities that have strict gun laws have lower violent crime and gun murder rates, Maybe then Brooks can explain why cities like Chicago and Washington DC and states like California that have some of the strictest gun laws have some of the highest gun murder rates in the country.

The murder rate in NYC is nothing to brag about. At 6.4 homicides/100k of population NYC's rate is more than 30% higher than the nation's average and 4 times higher than nearly all western European cities. If the left think they can hold NYC up as an example of where strict gun laws work, they need to take a serious reality check.

As a society we need to look at personal responsibility and how we raise our children. Do we give them the skills they need to cope with depression and anxiety later in life? 20s is a critical stage; I knew many kids in college who were depressed. Most of these did not have the skills to "be around other people". They did not know how to interact with others. Once depression slips in, especially at that age, there is very little you can do. As parents we need to make sure that we address our children's spiritual, emotional and social skills at a very young age. We need to make sure they have opportunities for socialization, spiritual reflection (based on the family's religious/philosophical beliefs) and just spending good old time with parents. Children, and especially boys, should not be left unsupervised for hours playing violent video games. This has a negative effect on their phyche and emotional health.

If we have children with special needs or if we feel we need to reach out for professional help to address our children's emotional needs, then we need to do it as early as possible, not waiting until they are 20. By that time, children have already formed their personalities and they are seeking to define themselves. Relationships are important to them. It is the time when they can 'hit bottom" and they may not be able to get out it.

Obviously, Adam Lanza, as a special needs child needed help more than anyone else. Why did his mother pull him out of school, the only place where he could have gotten some help especially since he had Asperger's? Just because he was a genius, does not mean he needed to be away from others. His mother should have sought help much earlier. A youngster his age should have been in at least a group home or something, socializing and learning skills to help him lead a decent life surrounded by others. Innstead, he was spending hours alone in a basement playing violent games while his mother was on vacation.

All of you parents out there, take individual responsibility. Get those fake guns out of your son's hands and play a boardgame with them, hug them, talk to them about their day. That's how I spend most of my nights with my children now, we focus on our kids and we make sure they say a prayer each night. If your children are special needs children, God bless you for going above and beyond to help them out and advocate for them. There are many great resources out there for special needs children.

Arran, I agree with you, our obsession with guns is a form of mental illness initself.

CR, the higher crimes in New York and Chicago are due to gangs and high poverty rates in certain areas and the inability of law enforcement to get those guns out of the hands of gangs and criminals. So this should be seen in a different light. It is not easy to constantly be in these poverty stricken areas full of guns trying to disrupt well organized gangs. It will take time and much effort on the part of police. It is also cultural in the sense that a lot of these kids grow up in a culture of poverty and violence. You have to break this cycle and hope that the kids growing up there make better decisions for themselves.

On the other hand, you have this other sickness with parents allowing their young male offsprings being raised in a certain way. They never learn about respect for life, they don't know what a coping mechanism is, they don't have many friends and they are usually very intelligent. They have no real communication with parents throughout their teenage years.

The parents use as an excuse that they have tried everything they could. I don't buy that. I have lived in other countries to be able to see how societies and communities teach youth from a young age to respect life at the least and to use certain coping mechanisms to get through life's challenges. We don't seem to get it here in the States. We have rid ourselves of every sort of spirituality. We depend on "experts" constantly and on laws to tell us what to do. Just look inside yourself. You will know what to do with a growing child if you are only honest with yourself.

It is the parents we have to educate about how to raise kids. Affluence and giving kids too much but very little in terms of social and emotional skills backfires in the end.

JM, that is very true, kids "do get trained" watching TV and learning "how to shoot". However, it is whether a child recognizes the difference between reality and fantasy and whetherr the child spends time doing other things as well (what else is going on in their lives). I have a nephew in high school who likes to play violent games. But the parents limit the time spend on these, they must play the game in a common area, and they also have very close friends who they spend time with on the weekends and during holidays. They have sleepovers, have fun and play outdoor games as well. In addition, my nephew attends Sunday school and has learned about the importance of respect for life as well as other moral and ethical values. I am not implying that everyone has to go to Sunday school to learn those. A parent can also teach moral values to a child or you could use the morals in your religion to teach kids right from wrong and to pray. All religions offer some type of an ethical system as well as prayer / meditation that is essential to a human being growing up. The social skills are as important as spiritual skills.

I am not a super religious person. However, as a child, the 10 commandments resonated with me, one of them being respect for life. Do we teach that to our children nowadays?

Piers,
It's not just the irony that you are British and want to take away Americans' guns (of which I own exactly zero). It's that I am an Irish-American and I wonder why you don't ever report on the fact that Northern Ireland is an apartheid state. Surely you're familiar with the Armalite and ballot box? I will gladly offer support for your "neutral observer" positions as soon as you advocate the end of a 1000 year tyrannical rule that includes genocide, enslavement, and military enforcement of an unarmed populace in Erin. And Piers, please don't lose your gun ban passion when you yell "Down with the Queen, God Save Ireland!"

God Bless,
I'll be looking forward to the impartial analysis of a journalist with character.

...Piers Morgan knows the answer to his question about how Americans would react if the government came to your door and asked for your guns....it wouldn't go over very well because of one word: Freedom. Obviously, many people in this country value guns, but why? A gun levels the playing field...a 100 lb. woman is just as powerful than a 300 lb. man if she has a gun to protect her and her children. So many people want the police to be the only line of defense between them and a criminal but the truth is that the police won't always be there....

I’m still trying to reconcile how they did that in Britain. Peirs said they went to homes and confiscated all the guns? Are the Brits spineless? That would create so many Waco standoffs in America that we would be cleaning up the mess for years. I bet they will go visit Alex Jones first. What you want to bet? I guess Alex really is our early warning system.

They didn't go home to home. The Brits were given dates and times to go and hand them in at local police stations. Apparently armed police were present at every station. Many Brits moved their guns to France apparently.

It's amazing to think that the French on a per capita basis are the 5th largest gun owning nation in the world, and yet have a lower per capita homicide rate than the Brits who have a virtual gun ban.

The family unit in France is much different. This isn't a gun problem or a gun solution. Granted, less access to guns would make a change, but the change isn’t something that will allow us all to sleep better at night. We need to get down to why these young people are doing this and deal with that.

I totally agree! Banning classes of guns because of their appearance won't stop this from happening. Some western European countries are the largest gun owning nations in world with some of the lowest per capita homicide rates. Rather than making feel good political gestures our politicians should be taking a good hard look at some of these countries for answers.

When immaturity is mixed in with spoiled rotten brats, who would probably do drugs as well as own a Semi-automatic weapon, they cry first. They don't give a damn about who gets killed and why. All they care about is their little toys.. It's a disgrace and it's disgusting.. Grow up..

Finally. Piers hosts a middle ground guest who is not on either radical end of the spectrum of this issue. Mr. Lowe does an excellent job at characterizing the role guns play in the average responsible american family. My upbringing and current status is nearly identical to Lowe. I can relate, as someone who was raised in the Midwest and is now living in urban, and opinionated, San Francisco with a few guns in a safe for hobby, hunting, and defense. He also wonderfully explains the real issues here: mental health, parenting, and personal responsibility. We need to consider the impact of violent video games that allow kids to virtually murder hundreds of times on a daily basis. I like how Lowe leaves the door open for regulation of weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing humans. I use the word "regulation" to mean some people may have access to assault weapons, but it will be appropriately and heavily restricted. Kudos to whoever on Piers team selected such a rationale guest as Lowe who has a feel for both sides of this issue. It's been getting tiring listening to irrational, non-productive fighting on air every night.

As an American who moved many years ago to Europe to offer my children better schooling, I was astonished to find a much better life for myself. I am no longer desperate that if I loose my job I loose my health benefits and can no longer offer my kids a home. It's sad that very few Americans afford to really see how people live in the other developed countries, and therefore they are so easily manipulated to believe that America is today what it once was.

Long work hours, small vacations, bad school system, expensive for-profit health plans, led to creating a whole country anesthetized by a mercenary news media and Hollywood industry, a country living their lives on a couch and wanting only to escape the reality of their lives.

Sadly, a large ignorant segment of population is led to believe that owning guns is synonym to be free.

I would love one day to come home, but many things would have to happen...

Ahhh, yes, the perks of having the State provide you with everything. You obviously are not living in Greece! How's Greece doing? Spain? Portugal? Italy? They had it all, health care, young retirement ages, etc. But eventually, as it has been said, YOU RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. When that happens, and the perks have to be cut back, THEN the @%&# hits the fan. Then people really get upset!

Look at what happened here with payroll taxes: 2 years ago BO "gave" everyone the "biggest tax cut in American history". Yeah, we all got $40 bucks a month more to splurge. BUT WAIT...now he just ended the "tax holiday" (note it's not being called a tax hike), and my checks are now $40 less a month. AND PEOPLE ARE TICKED OVER THAT!! Can you imagine what will happen when they find out there won't be any more Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid? Or Obama (doesn't) Care? Rioting in the streets, just like Greece! THAT'S another reason why we need to hang on to guns!

You ask a very valid question, Which was why would someone need to own an AR-15, the answer is because we CAN. It also goes along with Why would someone need a car that goes 200mph. Its because they CAN and that is what they want. We have many rights as US citizens. GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE, STUPID PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

Not a very good answer. I have a lot of guns and each one I have I have for a specific reason and purpose. I don’t have an AR-15. I don’t feel like I am not able to stop any threat that may come my way and that includes a nut with an AR-15. I can’t answer the question of why a person needs an AR-15. I really can’t come up with a valid reason for the ability to spit out that many rounds from a single loading. Nothing against the AR-15, I just can’t come up with a justifiable reason for the magazine that enables it to do that. If an offensive force shows up that requires that kind of response, running is a better option. I think they call that bugging out.

I don't have a problem with his answer. Posing the question in terms of "need" is disingenuous – look around your home; you don't need 90% of the stuff in there. We can't legislate away personal choice because certain members in our society don't think that other members "need"certain things. My mayor just implemented a size limit on sugary drinks. Now, I don't personally want a huge soda (and I certainly don't need one) but its not my right ir the government's right to tell anyone else that they can't purchase it. As for guns, I think the onus is on the anti-gun crowd to explain why an individual shouldn't have one.

On the contrary i think it's a perfect answer
If you are trying to restrict someone from owning something – the burden is on you to determine why they shouldn't have it, not on them to justify why they need it.

"Why do you need this" might be a perfectly valid question for someone to ask themselves or their spouse or someone else conversationally – but it has no place on the legislative floor. As RJ said – you don't "need" 90% of the stuff in your house either.

That has always been a person’s right until doing it causes a problem. I remember when you could own a lion in almost any city in America. When they started eating people, the government put a stop to it, or at least put major restriction on it. If we were all responsible gun owners, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The fact is that we have allowed stupid people to own these firearms and even you will admit that a stupid person shouldn’t have a right to own a firearm. To say they should would be irresponsible. So, at this point you do have to justify owning these weapons with all the options to make it such a lethal force.

If we are all so save in our humble abodes and can rely on a benevolent government to insure that we remain safe in our homes, why is TV running a series on PREPPERS who rate "security" high on their list of priority issues. The Walton family is among the Preppers–and are prepared to jump down their rabbit hole which is protected by security fence and and a well-armed security force. Piers should interview some of these folks–to ensure a lively discussion.

I am not sure why no one has been able to answer your question about assault weapons. The answer is simple, we are not in Europe, we are in America which includes Mexico, drug cartels, and many active gangs. If there was a major flu epidemic or economic crises these gangs and cartels would try and take over neighborhoods and whatever resources were available. A handgun in that situation will not cut it. Being limited to 7 bullets if a group of even just 3 or 4 guys busted into your house would not work. A couple of misses and you and your family are dead or worse. Why new gun laws come up every time a crazy person massacres people I do not understand. Guns are not the issue. The worst school massacre was a bombing in 1927. Gun Violence is the use of a gun by a criminal in a criminal act. Crazy people killing others for no reason is not something you can legislate away. The recipe for IEDs are all over the internet. Why are you not trying to address the real problem, which is the horrible lack of mental health care for kids and people that have mental problems?

I disagree. If there was a law making the possession of a magazine greater than 10 rounds a felony, I think you would turn them over. Think about it. If you get convicted of a felony, you lose your second amendment rights for life. Is that worth a few extra rounds? Then again, I don’t know if the courts could deal with making that many citizens criminals.

It is amazing that the public don't understand what is happening here. The changes that the president is making is not taking your right to own guns, just the type of weapon. They can still own as many weapons they want, just not assault weapon style guns.

what some people don't understand is that these "assault STYLE guns" function the same way as my dad's 30-06 [hunting] rifle... I can find a 10 round magazine for his rifle, what makes that better than a 10 round magazine in an AR-15? The 30-06 is a more powerful round than a 5.56 or .223. The AR-15 just looks scarier. I can put the body of a Ferrari on my Chevy Malibu, but it doesn't make it a sports car, does it? It makes it a Chevy Malibu that looks like a Ferrari and nothing more. I can understand where people come up with their logic for banning high capacity magazines, but I cannot for the life of me understand where people come up with their logic for banning these scary looking rifles if there's already a 10 round capacity. I hope you understand my line of reasoning because it just makes so much sense to me.

Well said. Technically, that 30.06 with a magazine is an assault weapon and will fall under the assault weapons ban. You just described a m1a carbine except it is a 308 or short cased 30.06. I agree with you that a specific weapon is not going to stop anything and just make people feel good until the next shooting and then everyone will want to ban whatever used in that. Anti-bun people are stupid in this specific case because we keep talking all emotional about kids in respect to the gun issue. I am very emotional about what happened at Newtown, but I want to see us do something that really matters and not chase a bunch of political agenda about guns.

Yes a 30-06 are more powerful than AR15.
Most 30-06 hunting rifles are bolt action single shot guns, not semi autos. So a big difference.
With a scope a 30-06 can reach out and tag a deer or moose, with an open site AR15, can this be accomplished?
If not then they are pretty useless for hunting, excepting shooting alot a bullets at something and hope you hit it.

my 30-06 is a semi-auto and I can find a 10 round clip for it... as for hunting, the AR-15 is used widely by people that hunt coyotes or feral hogs... but that's beside the point. the 2nd amendment is NOT for hunting.

As we have all heard "America Love it or leave it" anyone who thinks there is a better place is wrong in my opinion, you may get freebies at other countries, but at what cost. I enjoy knowing that if someone tries to hurt my family that I can remove the low life from breathing my air. try owning a house of the quality we have here in the States verse those say in Germnay, you couldn't. I agree Europe is Gorgeous but give up my home in the United States no way.

I don't have a problem with people having to go through a background check but banning assault weapons that the Military will continue to make, that tells me that the black market will still have access. We don't have a problem in our country with good citizens owning guns, it's the bad people getting their hands on them. I want something done to make sure our children and people are safe.

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.